DONALD JOSEPH BATTIG ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the contract clause did not impose an affirmative obligation on the Diocese to provide medical attention only at the direction of a physician, and that the tort claim was prescribed.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and tort, alleging the Diocese breached a contract clause by providing medical attention not directed by a physi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prescription (Louisiana Law) cases and more on FLexlaw
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the trial court, Battig v. Diocese of Alexandria, W.D.La.19 — . The plaintiff contends that he did not abandon his claim for breach of contract. The trial court was in the best position to determine whether this contention, made in the complaint, had been eliminated in the annealing and tempering process of its pre-trial procedure. We, therefore, cannot say it was in error. Nonetheless we have carefully examined the contract clause1 that it is asserted the defendant breached. The plaintiff’s contention is that the clause imposed an affirmative obligation on the Diocese to provide medical attention only at the direction of a physician, and that he should be given a chance to prove that this duty was breached. No extrinsic evidence was offered to support this interpretation and we, therefore, read only the plain words of the contract, unadorned by testimony of collateral understandings, past practices or custom. To us they do not carry the import suggested by the plaintiffs; they say simply that, if St. Mary’s finds it necessary, it may engage the services of a physician to provide medical care for one of its students. The meaning attributed to the words by the plaintiff is not impossible, but it is implausible. In Louisiana a contract is to be read according to its plain intendment. La.Civ. Code Ann. arts. 1945, 1946 (West). Absent latent or patent ambiguities, the meaning of a contract is for the court as a matter of law. Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 5 Cir. 1967, 381 F. 2d 459.
We conclude that the words alone do not carry the message that would support the claim for breach of contract now made. The tort claim is prescribed for the reasons set forth by the experienced trial judge in his discussion of the applicable principles of Louisiana law.
For these reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
. The clause in question stated:
VIII. St. Mary’s reserves the right to provide medical, dental, or nursing care as directed by a physician or dentist, be it in the school clinic or in the hospital, and such emergency treatment, including surgery, as may be deemed necessary.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Olin Corp., 780 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1986)
-
Christopher v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 644 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Palmer v. Fuqua, 641 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Freeman v. Cont'l GIN Co., 381 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1967)